ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2021
[Interdisciplinary communication: ophthalmologists' letters to practices specializing in diabetic patients].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02311504 (OCT Screening of Diabetes Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
OCT Screening of Diabetes Patients: Health Care Research in Secondary Diabetes Care Centers
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOphthalmologists' letters and medical reports play an important role in the interdisciplinary cooperation between general practitioner, internist, diabetologist and ophthalmologist providing means of information and communication for the avoidance, delay and treatment of diabetic retinopathy (DR).
methodsIn a cross-sectional study (NCT02311504) the ophthalmologicsts' letters and other clinical parameters were extracted from electronic patient records (EPR) of 810 patients with diabetes. Files were classified into different categories of formats, tested with respect to topicality and content structure and analyzed according to the topic complex of the national treatment guidelines for retinal complications.
resultsIn 59% of the patients an ophthalmologist's medical report was identified in the EPR. Of these, 26% were computer-generated documents, 73% were handwritten. 55% used the standard form of the national guidelines, 21% were self-designed formats, 16% detailed letters, 5% short reports and 3% short messages. The information was written on average 19 months ago. Of the documents 25% were older than 2 years at the time of the study. Of the patients 75% visited an ophthalmologist in the previous 12 months, yielding a report rate of only 40%. The prevalence of DR reported in the forms was 12%, in detailed letters 32%.
conclusionAlthough standardized forms are widely distributed in the ophthalmologists' communication with diabetologists, there is room for improvement in the face of the low report rate to enable a timely consideration of relevant findings. The high number of handwritten documents shows the large untapped potential of electronic formats in the interdisciplinary communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.